Karnataka High Court
Anita W/O Saidappa Kage @ Harijan vs Divisional Controller on 12 September, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
MFA No. 202370 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202415 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202370 OF 2023 (MV-I)
C/W
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.202415 OF 2023
IN M.F.A.NO.202370/2023
BETWEEN:
ANITA
W/O SAIDAPPA KAGE @ HARIJAN,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: ARJUNGI,
TQ: BABALESHWAR,
DIST; VIJAYAUPURA.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NWKRTC BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
MFA No. 202370 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202415 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01-03-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI, AT VIJAYAPUR, IN
MVC.NO.814/2021 AND PASS REASONABLE AWARD.
ALTERNATIVELY THE HON'BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE
PLEASED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO LEARNED TRIBUNAL
FOR A FRESH TRIAL PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THE
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.202415/2023
BETWEEN:
1. ANITA
W/O SAIDAPPA KAGE @ HARIJAN,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. VISHNU
S/O SAIDAPPA KAGE @ HARIJAN,
AGE: 09 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. TULAJABAI
W/O CHIDANAND KAGE @ HARIJAN,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
4. CHIDANAND
S/O BHIMAPPA KAGE @ HARIJAN,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
MFA No. 202370 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202415 of 2023
HC-KAR
APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINOR
R/BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER,
APPELLANT NO.1 AS A MINOR GUARDIAN,
ALL ARE R/O: ARJUNAGI,
TQ: BABALESHWAR,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NWKRTC BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01-03-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VI, AT VIJAYAPUR, IN
MVC.NO.218/2021 AND PASS REASONABLE AWARD.
ALTERNATIVELY THE HON'BLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE
PLEASED TO REMAND THE MATTER TO LEARNED TRIBUNAL
FOR A FRESH TRIAL PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THE
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE MFA's, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
MFA No. 202370 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 202415 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR
AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the claimants of two
claim petitions challenging the dismissal of their claim
petitions by the common judgment dated 01.03.2023
passed in MVC.No.218/2021 and 814/2021 by the I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-VI,
Vijayapura.
02. MVC.No.218/2021 has been filed by the legal
representatives of the deceased - Siddappa Kage @
Harijan claiming compensation in respect of death of
Siddappa Kage @ Harijan in a road traffic accident.
03. MVC.No.814/2021 has been filed by the injured
claiming compensation in respect of injuries sustained by
her in a road traffic accident.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
04. As per averments in the both claim petitions
that on 05.11.2020 at about 04.50 p.m. the deceased -
Siddappa Kage @ Harijan was riding his motorcycle
bearing No.KA-48-H-5050 and his wife - Anita claimant in
both petitions was a pillion rider and when it was moving
towards Sungathan from Arjunagi village, the deceased
was riding his motorcycle in a moderate speed and on his
extreme left side and at the time NWKRTC bus KA-29-F-
1274 came from opposite direction in a high speed and in
a rash and negligent manner and the driver of the bus lost
control of the vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle,
due to said impact, Siddappa died on the spot and his wife
sustained injuries. With regard to the said accident and
death of Siddappa and injuries to the said Anita, the claim
petitions are filed.
05. Respondent - corporation contested the
petitions contending that the accident has not at all taken
place as alleged in the claim petitions.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
06. The Tribunal has framed issue No.1 in both the
claim petitions along with other issues. The said issue No.1
pertains to proof of rash and negligent driving of the bus
driver which caused the accident.
07. A common evidence has been led in both the
claim petitions by both the parties. The claimant - Anita
has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.15. The driver of the bus has been examined as RW.1
and the Depot Controller has been examined as RW.2 and
got marked Ex.R.1 to R.19.
08. The Tribunal after hearing the arguments on
both sides and appreciating the evidence on record, gave
finding that the claimants have failed to prove issue No.1
in both the claim petitions.
09. The said finding on issue No.1 in both the claim
petitions and consequential dismissal of the claim petitions
has been challenged in the present appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
10. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants
and the respondent - corporation.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that the charge-sheet has been filed against the
driver of the NWKRTC bus and copy of which is at Ex.P.12,
which indicate that RW.1 was driving the bus at the time
of accident and accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of the bus. He further submits
that statement of one Kashibai recorded by the police and
its copy has been produced at Ex.P.8 wherein she has
identified the driver on being shown to her as the driver of
the bus at the time of accident and her bus ticket collected
by the police which is part of the charge-sheet which has
been marked at Ex.P.7. He further submits that in the
inquest mahazar at Ex.P.11 there is mention of NWKRTC
bus causing the accident and one of the witness by name
Santosh was also present at the time of inquest
panchanama. Merely, because the pillion rider injured -
Anita in her complaint - Ex.P.2 has not stated that the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
vehicle which caused the accident is the bus, on that basis
the Tribunal has erroneously observed that the bus is a big
in size and as a pillion rider ought to have seen that the
vehicle caused accident is a bus and doubted involvement
of the bus. With these, he prayed for allowing the appeals
and setting aside the findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1
in both the cases.
12. Learned counsel for respondent - corporation
would contend that on appreciating the entire evidence,
the Tribunal has rightly given findings on issue No.1 in
both claim petitions. The driver of the bus has been
examined as RW.1 and he has given statement as per
Ex.R.1 to the police. RW.2 - Depot Controller stated about
the movement of the bus and entry and exist of the bus in
Vijayapura - Bableshwar. Considering the entry of the bus
at 04.55 p.m. it is clear that the accident had not taken
place at 04.50 p.m. as alleged, the distance between
Bableshwar bus-stand and the spot of accident is about
nearly 05 to 06 kms. He further stated that the statement
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
of one Kashibai has not been produced, but her further
statement has been produced at Ex.P.8. The said Kashibai
and Santosh who had cited as eyewitnesses in the charge-
sheet have not been examined. He further submits that
driver has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
before this Court and in that he has challenged the
charge-sheet. He further submits that the criminal case
registered against the driver is still pending for trial.
Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal has rightly
given finding on issue No.1 and dismissed the claim
petitions.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and the respondent, this Court has perused the
impugned common judgment and Trial Court records.
14. The deceased - Siddappa Bage @ Harijan was
rider and his wife - Anita is pillion rider on motorcycle
bearing No.KA-48-H-5050 on 05.11.2020 and at that time
a NWKRTC bus bearing No.KA-29-F-1274 came from
opposite direction and dashed to the said motorcycle and
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
driver of the said bus drove the bus in a rash and
negligent manner and accident has taken place near the
land of Chandrappa Khilarhatti of Yakkundi village. The
said Siddappa Kage @ Harijan died on the spot and his
wife - Anita sustained injuries. The said Anita the wife of
the deceased filed complaint, the copy of which is at
Ex.P.2. On the basis of the said complaint Crime
No.130/2020 has been registered and in the FIR the case
is registered against the driver of unknown vehicle. In the
said complaint, the said Anita has stated that a vehicle
came from Bableshwar side and it dashed to the
motorcycle and the driver was driving it in a high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner. In the said complaint
the said Anita has not stated that the said vehicle which
caused the accident is the bus i.e., NWKRTC bus.
15. Learned Tribunal considering the aspect that
complainant is a pillion rider and bus is in big in size, she
ought to have seen it and mention in her complaint as bus
and doubted involvement of the bus in the accident.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
16. The charge-sheet copy of which is at Ex.P.12
indicate that it is filed against the driver of the NWKSRTC
bus i.e., RW.1 - Shivanand s/o Hira Chavan and there are
two eyewitnesses cited in the said charge-sheet, No.1 is
Anita the wife of the deceased and No.2 is Santosh
Kallappa Panchgavi - CW.12 and another is Kashibai
Shrishail Chikkodi - CW.11. The copy of further statement
of said Kashibai has been produced at Ex.P.8. The Tribunal
has not considered the charge-sheet and the evidence of
PW.1, only considered the aspect that the eyewitnesses to
the accident have not been examined. The Tribunal has
placed much reliance on the evidence of RW.1 driver and
RW.2 - Depot Controller and non-statement of description
of the vehicle by the complainant - Anita even though she
is the eyewitness. The Tribunal has not taken into
consideration that on the spot the husband of the said
Anita died in the accident and subsequent to that she has
filed a complaint.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
17. Learned counsel for the appellants would
contend that normally the women on a motorcycle sit on
one side facing towards left and vehicle coming from front
side are sometimes not visible to the pillion rider.
18. Even the complaint given by the NWKRTC to the
S.P. Vijayapura as per Ex.P.12 is after thought and filed
after nearly 04 months of the accident.
19. Considering all these aspects it is clear that
evidence on record is not sufficient to give finding on issue
No.1 and parties required to be given opportunity to lead
further evidence so as to enable them to examine
eyewitnesses cited in the charge-sheet and other
evidence.
20. In view of the above, the matter requires to be
remanded to the Tribunal for giving further opportunities
to the parties to lead further evidence. In view of the
above, the common judgment passed in MVC.No.218/2021
and MVC.No.814/2021 requires to be set-aside. In the
result, the following;
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5377
HC-KAR
ORDER
I. Both the appeals are allowed.
II. The impugned common judgment dated 01.03.2023
passed in MVC.No.218/2021 and 814/2021 by I
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-VI,
Vijayapura, is set-aside.
III. The matters are remanded to the Tribunal with a
direction to give opportunity to both the parties to
lead further evidence.
IV. The parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 13.10.2025 without anticipating any
Court notice.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
KJJ
Ct;Vk
